Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/11/1998 03:39 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
February 11, 1998
3:39 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Rick Halford, Chairman
Senator Lyda Green, Vice Chairman
Senator Loren Leman
Senator Robin Taylor
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Bert Sharp
Senator John Torgerson
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 250
"An Act relating to management of game and to the duties of the
commissioner of fish and game."
- MOVED SB 250 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 17
"An Act establishing the Department of Natural Resources as the
platting authority in certain areas of the state; relating to
subdivisions and dedications; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 250 - No previous action to record.
HB 17 - No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Ms. Marilyn Wilson, Staff
Senator Bert Sharp
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99811-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Read sponsor statement for SB 250.
Mr. Wayne Regelin, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 250.
Mr. Rod Arno
Alaska Outdoor Council
Palmer, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 250.
Mr. Brett Huber, Staff
Senator Rick Halford
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99811-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 17.
Ms. Jane Angvik, Director
Division of Land
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street, Ste. 1122
Anchorage, AK 99503-5947
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 17.
Mr. Gerald Jennings, Surveyor
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C St., Ste 1122
Anchorage, AK 99503-5947
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 17.
Mr. Walt Wilcox, Staff
Representative James
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99811-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSHB 17.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-10, SIDE A
Number 001
SB 250 - MANAGEMENT OF GAME
CHAIRMAN HALFORD called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to
order at 3:39 p.m. and announced SB 250 to be up for consideration
and said that it further defines intensive management.
MS. MARILYN WILSON, Staff to Senator Sharp, sponsor, said in 1994
legislation was passed implementing intensive game management.
Since that time, the ADF&G and the Board of Game have had
difficulty interpreting and implementing this legislation. SB 250
narrows down and defines legislative findings that provides for
high levels of harvest for human consumption consistent with the
sustained yield principle. It further states big game prey
populations should be managed biologically by amending AS
16.05.255(g) and adding a new definition for sustained yield.
The Board of Game is further instructed to establish harvest goals
and seasons for managing big game prey populations to achieve a
high level of human harvest. The Commissioner, by delegation of
the Board, shall cooperate and assist by implementing regulations,
management plans and other programs to accomplish these goals.
To further assist the Board and the Department, the bill contains
definitions for harvestable surplus and high levels of human
harvest. These are terms that are in existing law and it has
become evident they beg for clear definition.
MR. WAYNE REGELIN, Director, said he wanted to refresh their memory
about how the intensive management law was intended to work. It
required the Board of Game to adopt regulations to restore to
abundance, or to increase productivity of big game populations
identified by the Board of Game. The Board was to go through a
process to determine if the population was depleted or not
productive and if enhancement was feasible. If that were the case
in a population, the Board is prohibited from reducing the take of
that population unless they adopted a regulation to intensively
manage that herd. The Board worked hard to try to figure out how
to implement this law and decided to do so on the basis of an
individual regulation. Each time a regulation proposal was
considered that would reduce the harvest level of a big game
population, the intensive management law was triggered and they
would go through the review process. This has proved to be an
inefficient and ineffective way to implement the law.
The ADF&G suggested that the Board of Game change their process and
implement the law in a more comprehensive fashion. Last year, the
Board agreed to that concept and has been moving forward to make
that happen. He thought that, not only did the Board and
administration realize it wasn't an effective way to do it, so did
the legislature. That's why they have SB 250 before them.
MR. REGELIN said SB 250 would require the Board of Game to
establish population and harvest goals to manage all big game
populations to achieve a 25 percent harvest level. This bill
defines a harvestable surplus as being equal to the number of
animals born in a population less the number of animals that die
from all causes other than predation or human harvest. This would
require the ADF&G to have to manage every ungulate population in
the State to meet the 25 percent harvest goal regardless of whether
there was a demand for that level of harvest by hunters or not.
The cost would be prohibitive and wouldn't be necessary for many of
the populations. The Department would rather focus their funds and
management efforts on the high priority populations based on hunter
demand.
Also, it's just not possible to achieve a 25 percent harvest rate
for some populations without severe reductions in predator
populations or the harvest of significant numbers of females.
His Division has been working with the Board of Game for nearly a
year to implement the intensive management law. The Board of Game
took the first step in this comprehensive approach last month at
their meeting in Bethel. They passed a regulation that will have
them identify big game populations that are important for providing
high levels of human harvest. They use four criteria to make this
decision: historical use of the population, accessibility for the
hunters, utilization for meat, and hunter demand. The Board would
also prioritize the moose and caribou populations that are the most
important based on hunter demand.
In March, the Board of Game will meet again and consider some
definitions that would help implement this law and will begin the
process of identifying the next populations that are high priority.
They would hold hearings to determine what the hunter demand should
be. Local advisory committees would be involved as well as other
hunters. The Board would set harvest objectives based on demands
that are achievable. They would not have to rely on a formula-
driven system that is arbitrary, that may not meet the needs of the
hunters, and in some places would be biologically impossible to
achieve.
He urged them to let the Board process continue. He thought the
approach they are using now will work with the intent of the law
without using an arbitrary formula that isn't good wildlife
management.
Number 120
SENATOR TAYLOR asked for some examples of why it would be bad
wildlife policy to manage predators so humans had more animals to
consume.
MR. REGELIN said he didn't think it was bad wildlife policy to
manage predators. They would like to regulate them like other big
game species and try to do that in many places through their normal
hunting and trapping efforts, especially with wolves. However,
reducing the wolf population becomes extremely controversial. The
public doesn't like it. One tool they were able to use without a
lot of controversy was the land and shoot which was defeated on an
initiative in 19 out of 20 Senate Districts at the last election.
Now they try to use innovative things like in the 40 Mile caribou
herd area through a combination of sterilization of wolves and
moving them out of the area.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked Mr. Regelin to clarify the proposed required
25 percent harvestable goal and asked if he did have to do that
what would happen?
MR. REGELIN responded that he thought the bill now says all big
game populations would be managed for this harvest level which he
thought could be worked out to allow the Board of Game to
prioritize so they only do the biggest and the ones most important
for human use. If it were the law, they would try to manage for
those goals along with the Board of Game. In some places, it just
can't be done and in some places it can. For example, management
unit 20 A, just south of Fairbanks, a very important area for human
use, has about 13,000 moose. This is probably more than they have
had for a long time. Those 13,000 moose produce 6,200 calves a
year. The 25 percent goal mandated in SB 250 would be a harvest
level of 1,485 moose. They could do that for moose without doing
any predator control and they would like to have a higher harvest
in that area. They do not want a bigger herd and there is a 25 day
season in that area. Last year the hunters took 678 moose. They
have a very limited cow hunt, but advisory committees don't want
cows shot. They can't get a much higher population harvest without
harvesting cows or they get a very distorted bull/cow ratio and
defeat their own purpose.
Besides cows, to have that 25 percent harvest level, you need to
distribute the hunter effort evenly across the entire unit which is
extremely hard to do. Some places are inaccessible and some are
impossible because they are in a military fly zone where hunters
can't go. They would like to harvest more, but aren't sure how to
do it. They don't want to do it without the ability to harvest
cows. This is an area where you don't want to be driven by an
arbitrary number. However, in the same management area they have
the Delta caribou herd, about 3,500 animals. It used to be 7 -
8,000 animals. The department is trying to rebuild it since it
reached a low of 1,800 animals and harvest is very restricted in
this area. It was entirely closed for a few years.
To achieve the 25 percent harvest level of that caribou herd would
require them to reduce the wolf population in that area by about 75
percent. He didn't know if that could be done. He didn't like to
spend a lot of effort and money and take a lot of political
pressures to try to manage a herd that's never going to be more
than 5,000 - 6,000 animals. He would rather put those efforts into
something like the 40 Mile caribou herd where there are 25,000 and
we could have 200,000.
Number 273
SENATOR TAYLOR said where he referenced arbitrary and capricious
formulas it said, "opportunity with a high probability of success
for humans to harvest at least one quarter of the harvestable
population," on page 2, lines 5 - 7. It doesn't say you have to go
out every year and kill 25 percent of every game population; it's
just a goal.
He asked him if he thought he was doing his job if he balked at
killing wolves if it was biologically required.
MR. REGELIN responded that there is no argument that says they
can't go out and do that except you have to remember that it's a
publicly owned resource and they are supposed to manage them the
way the public wants them to be managed.
SENATOR TAYLOR interrupted saying that they set policy in the
legislature and they represent the public and he is part of the
executive branch that is supposed to carry out the policies the
legislature sets. He asked how many wolves had been taken in the
last three years in area 20A.
MR. REGELIN replied that they hadn't taken any out of that
population at all.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked why not.
MR. REGELIN answered because they didn't have an approved wolf
reduction program right now. They had one on the books which
became extremely controversial and was curtailed. He said we need
to manage predators where it's the most important to do it. It's
highly controversial. They are not going to be able to do it
statewide on all the smaller populations. They have to be careful
and do it where they have a lot of support.
SENATOR TAYLOR said that his department made the decision not to
protect or enhance the 20A caribou herd, other than to stop human
harvest, by not killing any wolves and having no program.
MR. REGELIN said that herd is continuing to grow and they would
like it to grow more and are trying experimental ways to reduce
wolf predation, but they aren't going out to kill them right now.
In the 40 Mile area, they have moved 19 wolves earlier this winter
as part of the experiment they are doing with sterilization and
movement. They have sterilized six packs and have moved 19 wolves
into other areas and will move about 30 more in March. The hope is
that the sterilized wolves will maintain their pack territory and
not have any pups and not have others join them.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked them if they caught the entire pack.
MR. REGELIN said no, they caught the alpha male and alpha female
and sterilized them. One can tell easily by looking at wolf
behavior out of an airplane which ones are alpha. He explained
that when they sterilized the alpha animal, they moved out all the
subdominate adults and left only pups. Those pups will be removed
this spring. Typically young wolves are learning to kill at about
the same time young calves are out there. They can kill a
tremendous amount of calves and this seems to be working in the
Yukon Territory. He explained that the neutered animals still eat,
but they don't have to teach the pups to kill which takes a lot
more animals. The rate really goes down. They hope to do this for
three or four years and get that population on a growth projectory.
He thought they could have over 100,000 caribou out there in short
order.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked how their program compared with the private
program that was done on the 40 Mile.
MR. REGELIN answered that the private program was the trapping
community that some of the fur buyers paid an incentive for wolves
taken in the area. The department has done their best to work with
those people and have kept the trapping open except in the pack
territories where they have sterilized the wolves. They don't want
them to catch the sterilized wolves. He said trappers took quite
a few wolves over a period of two years - about 30 percent. He
said they helped the sterilization experiment by reducing the
number of wolves on the periphery so that fewer subadults would
move in. A 35 percent harvest rate doesn't decrease the wolf
population. They can reproduce at the rate of 30 - 40 percent per
year. So at 30 percent, you're just maintaining the population.
Number 360
SENATOR LINCOLN said she was having difficulty reading section 4
the same as Senator Taylor. He read it as a recommendation of at
least 25 percent while Mr. Regelin thought it was a mandate. She
asked him why he concluded it was a mandate.
MR. REGELIN said the way the language was constructed it was
certainly meant to be a mandate. He has never heard it wasn't
supposed to be.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if there were definitions somewhere. She
didn't know what opportunity with a high probability means. She
also had difficulty with the $600,000 fiscal note which would be
affected depending on the interpretation.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said it didn't matter how much they push on this
end of the rope, the other end doesn't move.
SENATOR LINCOLN said it sounds like the pushing at this end of the
rope has already started because the Board of Game has already
started to implement what the authors of this legislation are
attempting to do. If they have moved so much in one year, why not
allow them time to address the concerns that are here. Who are
they in the legislature if they think they can become the Board of
Game?
SENATOR TAYLOR said they just set policy for them to carry out. He
noted that the department is only going to identify four
populations to be managed in this fashion. He asked how much the
privately funded program cost the department on the 40 Mile.
MR. REGELIN responded that he made the assumption to limit it to
four populations in the fiscal note, because he tries to make the
figures real. Each population would cost about $150,000. The
private program did not cost the department a penny. It was a
private program that takes about 30 percent of the wolf population
every year. The wolf population will not decrease when you harvest
30 percent of the population. They have to be reduced by 60 - 75
percent for four years to make it work. That's why the efforts of
both the department the trappers are needed to make this a
successful program.
SENATOR TAYLOR said figures from his department on the 40 Mile herd
are about 126 wolves the first year, 80 or so the second year and
they did that at no cost to the department. At the end of the
second year there was an increase in calf survival in that
population of about 13 percent. He said Mr. Regelin could have
just answered that the trappers were doing the department's job for
them and that the herd is increasing.
MR. REGELIN responded that if he thought that was an accurate
statement, he would have said it. There was a small increase in
the caribou survival rate and the trappers get credit for that.
The department has studied wolf predation on caribou and moose
populations for many years. No one can argue with the 35
percent(that trappers take). If they were taking 60 percent, he
wouldn't have to do this. But they weren't. He said the trappers
are still being very effective out there.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if he thought it was so expensive to do it,
why didn't they just let the legislature go out and provide an
incentive for the trappers to go do the job they can't figure out
how to do. He asked what moose the people of McGrath have been
able to harvest over the last three years.
MR. REGELIN replied that last year the community of McGrath
harvested 87 moose in McGrath, one of the highest levels of harvest
they have had in quite a while. They are working closely with
those people to teach them how to trap in that area. They are
providing trapper education schools and encouraging them to trap.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if they had to be taught to go out and do the
job his department was not doing in that area.
MR. REGELIN replied that they had requested them to provide trapper
education classes for a lot of the people out there and they have
done so. It's very difficult to do and a lot of people don't know
how. They were asked to come out.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if his sterilization program was so effective,
why weren't they teaching them how to neuter wolves.
MR. ROD ARNO, Alaska Outdoor Council, supported the basic concept
of SB 250, but would like to continue working with the bill's
sponsors regarding definition of terms. Managing big game prey
populations under the sustained yield principle embodied in Article
8, Section 4 of Alaska's constitution is ecologically sound and
environmentally correct. It's also needed now to reduce the
allocation conflicts they see along road accessible areas where
urban and rural hunters are meeting.
Although SB 77 was passed in 1994 and the fund for enhancing
abundance was provided by the legislature in 1995, little has been
done to meet the demand for the harvest objectives of those
Alaskans who choose to have wild food harvest as part of their
lifestyle. In the 1995-'96 season, over 47,000 tags were put out
for moose and about 30,000 who took out their tags returned them
and 7,000 actually got a moose. There are low moose populations
in game management unit 12, 19c, 19d, 20c, 20d, 20e, 20f, 21, 24,
25, and 26. Some of them are as low as they have been in the last
20 years. Something needs to be done to correct the chronic game
shortages.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if there were parts of the bill that they
questioned since they only support the concept of it.
MR. ARNO said there are parts they still want to work on because
they are not biologically achievable and the other is the
definition of sustained yield. So far there is no definition
because of all the variables.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if he had some sort of historical data that
show how many licenses were given in one year and how many were
actually successfully by percentage.
MR. ARNO answered yes, he had figures from ADF&G. The number of
licensed hunters for nonresidents for the last 22 years has
fluctuated between 8,000 - 10,000. It hasn't increased. The
number of resident hunters has been close to 80,000 and has
fluctuated 5,000 - 7,000 either way. The overall number hasn't
increased.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked what the ratio was of resident hunters that
were successful to nonresident hunters.
MR. ARNO answered that there was a higher percentage for non-
resident hunters because they are guided. The success rate shows
60 - 70 percent for guided hunts.
SENATOR LINCOLN explained the reason she asked is she wanted to
know how many of the nonresident hunters were just new and would
fit into the 47,000.
MR. ARNO answered that he wasn't sure of that figure, but figures
on the take by nonresidents show there weren't as many moose taken
in the unguided category.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if there were any suggestions on changing the
three definitions that were provided on page 2.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said the sponsor wanted to work on those in a
subsequent committee.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked on section 5(b), if you read, "The Board
delegates authority to the Commissioner to act on its behalf and
the Commissioner shall cooperate and assist the Board." Then it
says in (c), if there's a conflict between the Board and
Commissioner, then there's going to be public hearings, etc. She
asked why they would need (c), if (b) says that the Commissioner
SHALL, not the Commissioner MAY.
SENATOR TAYLOR answered because it would be very difficult for the
Board to take the Commissioner to court and order him to do it.
The Governor appoints both the Commissioner and the Board.
SENATOR LINCOLN said it seemed redundant to have (c) in there.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass SB 250 with individual
recommendations. SENATOR LINCOLN objected saying because as a
resources committee they can't do anything about the fiscal note,
but one of their responsibilities is to correct the language if
there is question. It seems as if there are questions, even by the
Outdoor Council, of whether the opportunity is recommended or
mandated and whether (b) and (c) is redundant.
SENATOR HALFORD asked for a hand vote. SENATORS LEMAN, HALFORD,
GREEN, and TAYLOR voted yes. SENATOR LINCOLN voted no. The motion
carried and SB 250 moved out of committee.
HB 17 - DNR APPROVE PLATS IN UNORG.BOROUGH
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced HB 17 to be up for consideration and
noted there was a proposed committee substitute.
MR. BRETT HUBER, Staff to Senator Halford, said the changes begin
on page 1, section 1, the purpose section. The primary intent of
the bill was to make sure that when parcels are subdivided and sold
that there was adequate access provided to them. It also provides
that the purpose of the bill is not to establish engineering or
other standards for subdivisions. The second change is in section
10 which restates the purpose section, putting it into the statute.
The reason is because the regulatory authority (page 6) says the
commissioner may adopt regulations to implement the provisions of
AS40.15.380, but only those that are necessary and in accordance
with the purposes stated in AS 40.15.300. On page 5, (g) and line
12, a 5/8 inch x 24 inch rebar and cap monument replaces a primary
type monument. On page 8(b) the OTE and remote parcel are removed
from the list of exceptions.
Number 557
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked why that was done.
MR. HUBER explained that the OTE and remote parcels are basically
programs that are no longer utilized and doesn't have any current
inventory. The effect of this amendment is that there would be no
effect on ones that are already out there other than the definition
of subdivision. It would, by not having them in this portion,
affect subsequent subdivision of those type of parcels that are out
there now.
SENATOR LINCOLN said one of her constituents wrote from Glen Ellen
about transfers of lands being done with a deed, but without a
survey, and that the added expense and time needed for DNR to
review plats will only decrease the number of subdivision surveys
being done now. He was suggesting that transfer of lands using
this mechanism is time-consuming and expensive and if it's just a
transfer of title, why go through this process?
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he thought the concern expressed by the
sponsor was subdivision creations that had no practical access and
no common repository for the records. The bill is intended to be
limited to just those issues.
MR. HUBER said he thought it referred to land transfers that are
not resulting from a subdivision. This bill only affects
subdivision plats.
SENATOR TAYLOR said it looks like, to the sponsor, a plat meant
either a record of survey or a subdivision.
Number 508
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if anyone could answer this letter which was
from Mr. Jack Phillips, a registered land surveyor.
MS. JANE ANGVIK, Director, Division of Lands, replied that they did
not have a copy of his letter, and she would be happy to look at
it. She thought this bill would provide for a record of private
land transfers and that that would be good.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if DNR supported the amended version.
MS. ANGVIK replied that they do support the committee substitute.
She added that a review of a plat costs $200 per plat by
regulation. It will take a person longer to transfer a piece of
land under this bill, but that's because they actually have to
record what they have done. It would cost the division more money
because they would have to review the plat, but the individual gets
some assurance that there is access to the subdivision, assurance
that there is a place in the public record that indicates it
happened and that the land has been surveyed.
MR. HUBER added that there is a provision in the bill that says if
the review doesn't take place within 45 days, it is deemed
approved. So it doesn't end up being caught in a back log.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if it would cost everyone $200 to have a plat
review.
MS. ANGVIK answered yes.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked why.
MR. GERALD JENNINGS, Head Surveyor, answered that it would cover
staff time because an additional plat survey assistant would have
to be hired, if this bill passes.
MS. ANGVIK added that right now the surveyors review all incoming
and outgoing titles for the State of Alaska. They spend a lot of
time reviewing boundaries for the oil and gas lease sales and
sports, etc.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if they considered a plat to be a
subdivision.
MR. JENNINGS replied yes.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked what the records of survey are.
MR. JENNINGS explained they are surveys of lands which haven't been
surveyed prior to this point. Up till now, people have been able
to create subdivisions of land by simply writing out legal
descriptions and not doing a survey. The record of survey law was
passed several years ago to provide a mechanism for getting the
subsequent surveys in the record.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if they charged for native lands being
conveyed to individuals from the federal government.
MS. ANGVIK said yes, they currently charge everyone $200.
MR. JENNINGS explained further that $200 was charged for the first
lot and $50 per additional lot.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said the committee substitute limits its purposes
to guaranteeing that there's really buildable access and to insure
that DNR doesn't become bottle-necked by adding more regulations
than necessary.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he found it disturbing that every single time
they take up new legislation some department has to jump on it as
a new revenue source to go out and hire a new person.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt the committee substitute to HB 17.
There were no objections and it was so ordered.
MR. WALT WILCOX, Staff to Representative James, sponsor, supported
the committee substitute.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said they would hold the bill and adjourned the
meeting at 4:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|